Zero Motorcycles, Inc. v. Pirelli Tyre S.p.a.; Pirelli & C. S.p.a.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZERO MOTORCYCLES, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A.; PIRELLI & C.
S.P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PIRELLI NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
PIRELLI TIRE LLC,
Defendants.
No. 11-16984
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-01290-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
ZERO MOTORCYCLES, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A.; PIRELLI & C.
S.P.A.; PIRELLI NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC,
No. 12-16187
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-01290-SBA
FILED
APR 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Zero Motorcycles (“Zero”) appeals the district court’s
order dismissing its action against Pirelli & C.S.p.A. and Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.
(collectively, “Pirelli-Defendants”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse,
because the district court erred in concluding that it lacked specific jurisdiction
over the Pirelli-Defendants. The district court held that the trademark proceedings
the Pirelli-Defendants instituted before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) were not “purposefully directed” at California. The Pirelli-
Defendants, however, knew that Zero’s principal place of business was in
California. See Washington Shoe Co. v. A–Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668,
679 (9th Cir. 2012); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082,
1087 (9th Cir. 2000). Any harm that Zero suffered from the allegedly improper
USPTO proceedings would therefore be felt by Zero in California. See
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(“We have repeatedly held that a corporation incurs economic loss, for
jurisdictional purposes, in the forum of its principal place of business.”). Because
the Pirelli-Defendants should reasonably expect that any harm from the USPTO
proceedings would occur in California, they can “reasonably anticipate being haled
into court” in California. World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 297 (1980).
We accordingly dismiss as moot Zero’s appeal of the district court’s order
denying Zero’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60, and we do not consider Zero’s request for leave to amend its
complaint to assert additional facts regarding jurisdiction.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --